San Diego – In a scathing ruling, San Diego Superior Court Judge Daniel B. Goldstein condemned the actions of former Orange County prosecutors and sheriff’s investigators for withholding 23 key pieces of evidence in a decades-old murder case. The misconduct, described as “reprehensible” by Judge Goldstein, led to the dismissal of special circumstances charges against defendant Paul Smith, effectively removing his life without parole sentence if convicted in a retrial.
While the judge denied the defense’s request to dismiss the case entirely, he ruled that the Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) engaged in extensive constitutional violations, particularly in their covert use of informants and deliberate withholding of evidence.
“This is an incredibly important ruling from a judge who facilitated an extraordinarily full and fair hearing,” said Scott Sanders, Smith’s attorney and a public defender with a long history of exposing misconduct in Orange County prosecutions. “The findings are damning in terms of the prosecution’s concealment of 23 items of evidence, with the court’s focus being on the misconduct of the prosecutor and the lead investigator.”
At the heart of the ruling was former Senior Assistant District Attorney Ebrahim Baytieh, who led the case for the OCDA, and Sergeant Raymond Wert, the lead investigator for OCSD.
Judge Goldstein noted that Baytieh was “fully aware” of his ethical obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence but “never reviewed law enforcement records to ensure the DA file was complete.”
Further, despite testifying that he had no knowledge of a key informant’s involvement, Baytieh personally signed a warrant affidavit that explicitly identified the informant by his confidential informant number. The judge called this discrepancy a falsified statement to the court and added:
“This leaves only two possibilities: either Baytieh did not actually review the warrant affidavit—in direct contradiction to his own signature; or he knew and deliberately concealed his knowledge of Platt in these and other proceedings.”
Judge Goldstein further pointed to evidence that Wert had a long history of using informants improperly and failing to disclose key documents. The judge found that Wert’s “covert use of informants continued beyond Defendant’s case,” suggesting a systemic issue within OCSD.A
The ruling detailed how prosecutors and investigators withheld or failed to document crucial evidence, particularly regarding the use of jailhouse informants. These violations closely mirrored the infamous Orange County jail informant scandal that led to the removal of the entire OCDA’s office from another high-profile case, People v. Dekraai.
Judge Goldstein highlighted that evidence regarding one informant, Palacios, was disclosed without issue, but information regarding two other informants, Platt and Martin, was either not booked or never turned over.
“What stands out to this court is how the tailored censorship surrounding Platt becomes abundantly clear when the exhibits are viewed as a whole,” Judge Goldstein wrote.
The OCDA only acknowledged the violations years later, leading to Smith’s previous conviction being vacated in 2021. The special circumstance of torture, which had been used to justify a life without parole sentence, was built in part on the statements of jailhouse informants, which were now deemed unreliable due to misconduct.
Despite the egregious prosecutorial misconduct, Judge Goldstein declined to dismiss the case outright, instead opting to strike the special circumstance allegation that would have kept Smith from ever receiving parole.
“The conduct was so ‘reprehensible’ that Mr. Smith should no longer face the possibility of parole,” said Sanders. “While we asked to have the case dismissed, it is nonetheless a carefully thought decision and one of the most important rulings in the criminal justice history of Orange County.”
The judge justified this less severe sanction by noting that, while the misconduct was serious, it did not make a fair retrial impossible. He contrasted this case with People v. Dekraai, in which misconduct by the OCDA was so extreme that the death penalty was taken off the table entirely.
This ruling is another black eye for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, which has faced decades of scrutiny over misconduct and discovery violations.
Judge Goldstein’s ruling is one of the most significant in Orange County’s criminal justice history, as it further exposes the widespread abuse of jailhouse informants.
Legal experts say this case could lead to renewed investigations into past convictions where informants were used improperly. It also sends a message to prosecutors that the courts will not tolerate the suppression of evidence or constitutional violations.
“The ruling underscores how prosecutors and law enforcement must be held accountable when they fail to uphold justice,” said Sanders. “We have seen time and time again in Orange County how the use of informants has been weaponized, and this case is just another example of how it destroys the integrity of the system.”
Smith’s case has now been transferred back to Orange County Superior Court, where he will stand trial without the special circumstance allegation. The OCDA will have to retry the case without using any of the informant-based evidence that was originally concealed.
